| Home | Back to Letters | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, The last couple of months have been a lot of work for your council. In addition to the normal flow of land use appeals we have approved the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), entered into an agreement to purchase open space (subject to state funding hoped for next year) and decided on a trail use plan for the Forrestal Preserve. We have also finally begun to look at the City's budget and infrastructure needs now that better cost estimates are available. We face total costs of about $33 million to repair storm drains and sewers. Although our storm drains were in worse condition than expected, our sewers were far better off than had been predicted. We may even get some help from the County for the sewers. However, for the about $30 million cost of the storm drain repairs we can expect no significant outside help. By arranging the projects by priority, we can probably stretch the work out over 20 years, yielding an average cost of $1.5 million per year. If we assume that the sewer program will cost about $3 million and be done over five years as staff recommends this yields a total infrastructure need of about $2.1 million per year. We will not find money for this cost in our current annual budget of about $13 million. As it is, our five year budget model predicts that our expenses will exceed our revenues by over $1.5 million over the next 5 years even if we spend nothing on infrastructure. The work is a necessity. Unrepaired storm drains cause slope failures leading to uninsured damage to homes. On only one street (San Ramon) the city's neglect led to a $4.7 million liability of which insurance only covered $1.7 million. How do we close the budget gap and fund necessary infrastructure repairs? Some say just wait for revenues from Ocean Trails (Trump's golf course) or Long Point (the former Marineland.) The golf course never has and never will never yield significant tax revenues to the city. Long Point could yield millions every year in hotel taxes if it gets built. The developer of Long Point has all the approvals needed to build, but does not yet have financing. Without special access to an 18 hole golf course Long Point may never be built. An earlier developer had entitlements too but went bankrupt without getting financing and never turned even one shovel of soil. It may be years before revenues from Long Point come through and no one will lend the City money now on the hope that they will come through. The upshot of all of this is that the City will need a user fee to help raise money. The average fee will probably be less than $200 per year and will be collected on your property tax bill if the voters approve it. If Long Point revenues do develop or other sources of revenue prove better than expected, the City can always lower the user fee either for one year or for more. However, if we do not act soon to obtain a user fee (it takes a total of 2 years from beginning the process until the dollars actually arrive) we could face more expensive emergency repairs as storm drains fail. The alternative to passing a user fee involves taking unacceptable risks by paying for normal ongoing expenses by reducing reserves (viz. deficit spending) or dramatic cuts in service. As our biggest budget item, law enforcement in particular may have to be on the chopping block and certainly expanding it would be impossible. So when you hear questions about user fees and whether you favor them, don't think just about whether or not you would prefer to pay less money, think also about what the consequences will be. City government costs money. Your city has responsibility for most of the infrastructure that serves your home and many of the services you need. Nonetheless, your city gets only 6% or your property tax dollar. Let's make protecting the City's financial health one of our New Year's resolutions. Tom Long |
||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, The past several months have been difficult and not particularly productive ones for your city council. The structure of city government is such that anyone who is unhappy with any decision by the city on almost anything can appeal the decision to the city council and require a full hearing. For the past two meetings, the result of this has been that the majority of out time has been spent on issues that are not of city-wide concern and that could better have been delegated to others. At our first September meeting, we spent most of our time addressing a single appeal from the Planning Commission on the size of one house in a proposed remodel and the placement of windows in that remodel. We ultimately upheld the Planning Commission’s decision after several hours. We had to skip over other items on our agenda, most notably our five year budget model. We have still not gotten to that model and at this point I don’t know when we will. Our second September meeting was consumed by the need to decide on a traffic calming program for Mira Vista (Eastview). Dozens of speakers showed up, largely to repeat testimony already given to the Traffic Committee. The City spent thousands of dollars sending postcards (at full rate!) to every household in the city on this issue even though only a small fraction of our residents are affected. (I received a card myself even though I am over 5 miles from the area and almost never use its roads.) A staff report was prepared that assumed we had previously made policy decision we had not in fact made and further complicated the decision-making process. Again we didn’t get to our five year budget model, we haven’t discussed sewer repair costs, and we have not even begun to discuss financing and scheduling infrastructure repairs. To accommodate the localized traffic issue, we ignored issues of city-wide importance and skipped council reports again. The issue consumed from a little before 8:00 p.m. until 12:30 in the morning of the next day. If only a small fraction of Planning Commission and Traffic Committee decisions are appealed to us in the future, we will find ourselves with no time for anything else, unless we are to become a full-time council. Of course full-time councilmembers may want more compensation than the current $200 per month. I plan on agendizing a proposal to limit appeals to the city council to situations where at least two council members vote to hear the appeal after reviewing the decisions by staff or committees and commissions. I can think of no other way for the council to regain control over its own agenda and to prioritize the work it is doing. I invite your suggestions and I encourage you to address the council as a whole on this topic (e-mail: cc@rpv.com ) so that we can try to make better use of our limited time. On one area of wider interest, I was able to meet recently with Public Utilities Commissioner Wood. The PUC has authority over most utilities that operate in the City. We have little or no authority. A number of residents have asked whether we can make Edison pay the cost of electrical undergrounding. There are two ways this could be done. First, Edison ’s profit rate could be reduced. The PUC feels it has done this as far as it can. At some point making investment in utilities less profitable will cause us all problems in getting service upgraded. Second, the costs of undergrounding could be added to the rate base. Wood did not know if the costs are already in the rate base. If they are then we are paying twice for them. Assuming they are not, it is not really fair to put the cost in rates charged everywhere to benefit only those neighborhoods that get undergrounding now. In any event, one way or another, it seems clear that residents will have to pay the cost of undergrounding—either in cash (perhaps financed over a number of years) or through increased rates. I also discovered from PUC Commissioner Wood that the PUC does everything it can to hold rates as low as possible. I know this sounds good, but it is actually very short-sighted. For example, California Water Company has advised us that it needs to upgrade its lines because of their age. The PUC did not allow the company to build up a fund to replace its lines. Accordingly, when the work is done, we will all face a dramatic increase in our water rates of perhaps 50% or more. The PUC forces utilities to be unprepared by treating funds set aside for infrastructure repair as surpluses that justify denying rate increases and even require rate rollbacks. Thus the rates you pay do not reflect the true cost of the utility service because there is no allowance for facility replacement. This is the same short-sighted practice the city itself engaged in with respect to its storm drains and sewers. Be forewarned and expect large rate increases as our utilities need to replace and repair worn out and outdated equipment. Finally I would like to remind you of two propositions on the November ballot I have spoken about before. Both 1A and 65 would limit the extent to which the state can raid local revenues. State legislators and the governor have, for years, concealed their financial mistakes by appropriating local revenues and forcing local politicians to take the blame for tax increases necessary to maintain essential services. Needless to say, the loss of revenues is never balanced by lessened responsibilities. To the contrary, the state continues to mandate services to be provided by localities without funding them. Both Propositions 1A and 65 will limit the state’s flexibility. 1A is the compromise put forth by the governor and the state legislature. It allows a limited amount of continued raids on local revenues. 65 is less flexible. Presumably the state legislature will honor its promise and not choke 1A in litigation if it passes. Of course promises mean little to many state legislators. There is no promise to support 65 and we can therefore expect efforts to be made to derail it if it passes. Nonetheless, I intend to vote for both and hope that 65 gets more votes so that it has some chance. I still strongly encourage a yes vote on 1A to provide us with at least the limited protection the governor and the legislature have deigned to offer to us. I have thoughts on some of the other propositions which I will share with you if asked but will not mention otherwise since they address issues that do not directly affect city government. As always, please feel free to call, write or e-mail your thoughts on these or any other city issues. Tom Long |
||||||||||
|
Dear RPV Residents, You will soon hear (if you have not already) that we now have a fairly good estimate on the cost of storm drain repairs for the city. A similar estimate for sewers is not yet available, but should be soon. The storm drain repair cost estimate is approximately $24 million. Of course some of the costs can be delayed and some repairs are lower priority because some drain failures would not threaten homes or streets. Nevertheless, large costs remain. Your council just approved a budget which has the city spending more money next year than it can be sure it will take in in revenue. We can do this because of some unrestricted reserves. We are optimistic that the excess spending (primarily for street maintenance) will ultimately be covered when the proposed deal between the state and the cities is finalized and some local revenues restored. If this happens, our current budget will be balanced (just barely). If it doesn't happen, we may need to defer street maintenance again. What this means, of course, is that our existing revenue is not enough to help with storm drain repair. We may be able to use some unrestricted reserves, but they won't be enough either. And the costs of sewer repairs is likely to add more to our burden. Moreover, we are being urged to spend $500,000 (and it will grow in subsequent years) for an ongoing traffic enforcement program. True, we could fund that program from unrestricted reserves for a while, but we currently have no revenue stream to support it in the long run. You may recall that the state's budget problems arose when the state spent one-time revenues on regular recurring expenses. We should try to avoid the same trap. It is likely we will need to borrow to finance storm drain and sewer repairs to spread out the cost and lessen the financial burden on residents. Still, the lenders will want to see dedicated revenue streams sufficient to pay back the loans. We have no such revenue now. It is likely (as I predicted in the campaign last fall) that we will need to ask for increased user fees and/or taxes. I invite your suggestions as to what we should do. If you think we can find the money we need in our $13 million annual budget, pick up a copy of that budget, read it, and tell us (specifically) where you would like to see the cuts take place. I have to be blunt, however, in saying that I doubt anyone will come up with enough budget cuts to fill the gap for the storm drain repair costs much less for the sewer repairs in a way that would allow us to get the repairs done within the next decade. Please also look at the Finance Advisory Committee's report outlining different financing mechanisms for infrastructure repairs and tell us what you think we should do. The city's financial problems in part result from raids on local revenues by the state over many years. You will see at least one initiative on the November ballot this year supported by the League of Cities and most local elected officials that would require revenue streams to be set aside for cities. These revenue streams would not be subject to seizure by the State to address its budget problems. As many of you know only 6% of your property tax goes to Rancho Palos Verdes. The City's other revenue streams include the 3% utility tax (passed by a wafer-thin majority a few years back and opposed by some former councilmembers), the VLF (the infamous car tax that is now 1/3rd of what it used to be), permit fees, a share of the sales tax revenues for businesses in the City (imagine how small that is for RPV) and a few other odds and ends. Our budget of a little under $13 million per year is not enough to fund all of the City's needs in the future. This is a problem that your Council will continue to focus upon with the help of staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. But at a minimum, we should use the November initiative as a means to protect what little revenue we currently have. This initiative has now qualified for the November ballot. I believe it deserves your support. Another initiative will also likely qualify for the November ballot. It would raise the sales tax in Los Angeles County by 1/2 percentage points to 8.75%. The money would reverse some severe budget cuts the County Sheriff has suffered that have caused, among other things, the early release of some prisoners. Your city would also benefit by getting an additional $2.3 million per year for law enforcement. This would be in addition to current expenses of $2.9 million. We could easily implement the traffic enforcement program described above, fund other projects and use any leftover funds saved over time for a new sheriff's substation in the city. Overall I think this initiative also deserves your support. Over the next few months, the city will be addressing a number of important issues, many shown on the city's webpage as city council goals. I encourage you to follow up on those goals and how we are doing in meeting (or not meeting) them. As always you should feel free to contact any of us individually with your questions or e-mail the council as a whole at cc@rpv.com. Tom Long |
||||||||||
|
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Voters, The March state election gave us a temporary respite from the State's financial crises given the approval of the bond propositions. Nonetheless, local funding remains threatened. You will see an initiative on the November ballot this year supported by the League of Cities and most local elected officials that would require revenue streams to be set aside for cities. These revenue streams would not be subject to seizure by the State to address its budget problems. As many of you know only 6% of your property tax goes to Rancho Palos Verdes. The City's other revenue streams include the 3% utility tax (passed by a wafer-thin majority a few years back and opposed by some former councilmembers), the VLF (the infamous car tax that is now 1/3rd of what it used to be), permit fees, a share of the sales tax revenues for businesses in the City (imagine how small that is for RPV) and a few other odds and ends. Our budget of a little under $13 million per year is not enough to fund all of the City's needs in the future. This is a problem that your Council will continue to focus upon with the help of staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. But at a minimum, we should use the November initiative as a means to protect what little revenue we currently have. This initiative has now qualified for the November ballot. I believe it deserves your support. Another
initiative will also likely qualify for the November ballot. It would
raise the sales tax in Los Angeles County by 1/2 percentage points
to 8.75%. The money would reverse some severe budget cuts the County
Sheriff has suffered that have caused, among other things, the early
release of some prisoners. Your city would also benefit by getting
an additional $2.5 million per year for law enforcement. It would
be hard for us to use all of this money. We probably don't need that
amount of additional policing each year given that we currently spend
about $2.9 million. However, we would be allowed to save money over
time and apply it to capital projects such as a new sheriff's substation
in the city. Overall I think this initiative also deserves your support. Tom Long |
||||||||||
|
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Voters, The March state election gave us a temporary respite from the State's financial crises given the approval of the bond propositions. Nonetheless, local funding remains threatened. You will see an initiative on the November ballot this year supported by the League of Cities and most local elected officials that would require revenue streams to be set aside for cities. These revenue streams would not be subject to seizure by the State to address its budget problems. As many of you know only 6% of your property tax goes to Rancho Palos Verdes. The City's other revenue streams include the 3% utility tax (passed by a wafer-thin majority a few years back and opposed by some former councilmembers), the VLF (the infamous car tax that is now 1/3rd of what it used to be), permit fees, a share of the sales tax revenues for businesses in the City (imagine how small that is for RPV) and a few other odds and ends. Our budget of a little under $13 million per year is not enough to fund all of the City's needs in the future. This is a problem that your Council will continue to focus upon with the help of staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. But at a minimum, we should use the November initiative as a means to protect what little revenue we currently have. At our April 6 meeting, the RPV City Council addressed a number of issues and clarified the City's view ordinance. My views on these issues can be seen in my memorandum to the planning commission in the link to the left "View Ordinance Memo to the Planning Commission." All of the issues raised in my memo have been clarified, many as I would have preferred, but some not. Most notably, the ordinance has been clarified to make it clear that all views below 16 feet must be ignored under all circumstances, even where a house is being built over 16 feet. To understand the impact of this view owners could place a 16 foot pole on their neighbor's property (with permission only please!) and consider what view would be protected if everything below the height of the pole is, as one councilmember suggested, "blacked out." For many view owners the answer is "nothing." The council's action overturned a 4-3 recommendation of the old planning commission and reversed its own unanimous decision of this February. It also denied the current planning commission's request, by a 5-1 vote, to let it consider the issues and make recommendations to us. The council's decision followed confusing and contradictory testimony by former and current planning commissioners as to what portion of a view should be considered. The council's decision will make it far easier for homeowners who want to expand their homes to do so without accommodating neighbors' views. Sadly much of the money the city spent to uphold the view ordinance against litigation challenges (which articulated many of the same concerns view protection opponents used against the ordinance now) seems to have been wasted. The ordinance may now become very ineffective as height variation permits for ever larger houses are routinely approved because the views that are blocked are below 16 feet. Views below 16 feet are still sometimes protected where foliage exceeds the ridgeline of a house, but both the council majority and the speakers seeking to weaken the ordinance seem opposed to this view protection as well. I predict it has a perilous future. We can anticipate further efforts in the future to weaken other ordinances that control the density of development. There is enormous pressure as land values increase to allow ever larger houses. Some decision-makers have expressed the view in the past that the value of improvements on a property should always be allowed to exceed the value of the land. By this logic, houses will get bigger without limit because land will increase in value in the long run as a limited commodity. I disagree with this approach. It will inherently lead to Rancho Palos Verdes looking much like other South Bay communities that have not acted decisively to control the density of development. Open space isn't just land in parks and preserves to which we travel to see. It is also the space around our houses that gives us light, views and comfort. The council's decision to dilute the view ordinance weakens the protection for the open space closest to our homes and, in a sense, most important to our daily lives. The view issues described above are decided and the council is not likely to reexamine them. Nevertheless, if you value open space and controls on the density of development, I urge you to let the other members of the council know (as I have) that you are unhappy with their decision and hope they will do more to protect open space and low density of development in the future. Your input may help put us back on track toward being more protective of open space. Tom Long |
||||||||||
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Voters, The March state election gave us a temporary respite from the State's financial crises given the approval of the bond propositions. Nonetheless, local funding remains threatened. You will see an initiative on the November ballot this year supported by the League of Cities and most local elected officials that would require revenue streams to be set aside for cities. These revenue streams would not be subject to seizure by the State to address its budget problems. As many of you know only 6% of your property tax goes to Rancho Palos Verdes. The City's other revenue streams include the 3% utility tax (passed by a wafer-thin majority a few years back and opposed by some former councilmembers), the VLF (the infamous car tax that is now 1/3rd of what it used to be), permit fees, a share of the sales tax revenues for businesses in the City (imagine how small that is for RPV) and a few other odds and ends. Our budget of a little under $13 million per year is not enough to fund all of the City's needs in the future. This is a problem that your Council will continue to focus upon with the help of staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. But at a minimum, we should use the November initiative as a means to protect what little revenue we currently have. At our April 6 meeting, the City Council will be addressing some issues relating to the City's view ordinance. As many of you know, the view ordinance was passed by almost 70% of the voters in 1989. The City Council had failed to act to pass an ordinance of its own. The City Council then blocked the enforcement of the ordinance for years because of threats of litigation even though no court ever enjoined the enforcement of the ordinance. The ordinance was recently upheld by a published decision of the California Court of Appeal against a wide variety of constitutional challenges. Nonetheless, some ambiguities and issues remain regarding the ordinance. My views on these issues can be seen in my memorandum to the planning commission in the link "View Ordinance Memo to the Planning Commission" to the left. There is a strong movement by those who wish to make it easier to expand homes and add second stories without accommodating neighbors views. I oppose these efforts. Your support may be crucial to protecting the view ordinance from those who would eviscerate it. I encourage you to write to the Council and/or attend the meeting on April 6th to present your views. Tom Long |
||||||||||
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Voters, In the upcoming election next Tuesday March 2nd you will be asked to vote on propositions 57 and 58. Both must pass for either to pass. What is at issue is whether the state will continue to borrow short term at high fees and high interest rates or instead through long term bonds at low rates. Proposed tax increases are NOT on the ballot. Voting NO won't prevent borrowing of some type because the money has already been spent. Voting NO will just mean that debt service costs will be higher and even more cuts will be necessary unless and until a tax increase is passed. If you think cities and local agencies are hard pressed by their budgets now, you have not seen anything yet. Just vote NO on 57 and 58 and those of us on your local councils will get to tell you the really bad news. We need to stay focused on what is best for the state. If the best solution to the financial crisis is not currently on the table, we must move to alternate solutions. Propositions 57 and 58 are the best options in front of us and deserve your YES Vote. Please use this web site to submit questions or comments here or send me e-mails or call me to address the issues that concern you. If you would like to be added to my e-mail list, please let me know. I intend to provide periodic updates of council activities by e-mail to those on my list as well as on this web page. Tom Long |
||||||||||
|
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Residents, I am leaving this website (my former campaign website) up as a way of trying to stay in communication with you. You can continue to submit questions or comments here or send me e-mails or call me to address the issues that concern you. If you would like to be added to my e-mail list, please let me know. I intend to provide periodic updates of council activities by e-mail to those on my list as well as on this webpage. Earlier this month the council passed my motion to restrict Lower Point Vicente to passive recreation and to instruct staff to obtain budgets, plans and timetables to locate up to 4 softball fields elsewhere in RPV. Lower Point Vicente is currently set aside for passive recreation so softball fields would have been a major change in its use. These restrictions exist in both zoning and, to my understanding, deed restrictions. True they can be changed, but we did not feel such a change was appropriate. Moreover, Lower Point Vicente is not a very central location. Numerous other areas will be more central locations and are already designated for active use. True some of these areas may cost more money to develop as recreational fields and may not be able to hold all 4 fields the girls' softball league would like in one place. Nonetheless, they are available and our direction requires the staff and its consultant to formulate specific plans, budgets and timetables for building up to 4 more fields in RPV. And I, for one, will support the City making the commitments needed to construct at least RPV's fair share of the league'sadditional needed fields. I am hopeful that now that a decision on land use for Lower Point Vicente has been made that all those who support more recreational facilities (and I count myself among this group) will work constructively together to achieve their goals. The council's vote was not a vote against girls' softball, merely a vote that the facilities should be placed in one of the many other areas that are available. Let's work together toward the future of making that happen rather than focusing on recriminations about the past. February is likely to see the council address the use of Upper Point Vicente. I am also pressing for an early development of plans to repair and renew the city's sewers and storm drains. The council agreed that this was a top priority at our recent workshop. The council's goals and its timetable for meeting those goals will soon be posted on the city's website. Please remember that there are limitations on what I can do as a councilmember. Please also be understanding as I learn my new responsibilities. I am confident I will quickly adapt, but I will always invite your suggestions as to how I can improve. Finally, I have left posted on this website information as to how you can contribute to my campaign. As many of you know, I faced a well-organized and well-funded opposition, some of it from partisan organizations outside the city. This opposition caused me to incur some unanticipated expenses. Unlike many other candidates, all of my donations were relatively small. None was larger than $500 and many were less than $100. And I did not have the assistance of a political party organization or a former gubernatorial candidate in raising funds. As a result, my campaign fund still has a deficit that I have had to personally fund with loans to make sure supporters were reimbursed and vendors paid. Again, thank you for your confidence you have placed in me by choosing me as one of your next councilmembers. I will work hard to maintain your trust. Tom Long |
||||||||||
|
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Residents, I am leaving this website (my former campaign website) up as a way of trying to stay in communication with you. You can continue to submit questions or comments here or send me e-mails or call me to address the issues that concern you. If you would like to be added to my e-mail list, please let me know. I intend to provide periodic updates of council activities by e-mail to those on my list as well as on this webpage. In January 2004, the council will be addressing a number of important items. Future uses of Point Vicente will be considered on January 6th and again later in the month. The council will have a workshop on Saturday January 10th at Hesse Park beginning at 9 am to plan our work for the upcoming year. The workshop is public and will not be televised, so you may want to attend or send us your thoughts beforehand. The council will also be attending a workshop on how to function effectively together in late January. That workshop is out of town and is not public but you can also send us your suggestions as to how we can work together more effectively. You can reach the entire council by sending one e-mail to cc@rpv.com The entire council will be traveling to Sacramento to attend meetings with our state legislators from January 11th through the 13th. You should feel free to share your message for our legislators with us. I intend to express my disappointment that state government continues to raid the revenue sources of local government leaving us poorly equipped for the tasks we face. Please remember that there are limitations on what I can do as a councilmember. Please also be understanding as I learn my new responsibilities. I am confident I will quickly adapt, but I will always invite your suggestions as to how I can improve. Finally, I have left posted on this website information as to how you can contribute to my campaign. As many of you know I faced a well-organized and well-funded opposition, some of it from partisan organizations outside the city. This opposition caused me to incur some unanticipated expenses. Unlike many other candidates, all of my donations were relatively small. None were larger than $500 and many were less than $100. And I did not have the assistance of a political party organization or a former gubernatorial candidate in raising funds. Again, thank you for your confidence you have placed in me by choosing me as one of your next councilmembers. I will work hard to maintain your trust. Tom Long |
||||||||||